header-logo header-logo

15 November 2024
Issue: 8094 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 15 November 2024

Company

Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (trading as Motonovo Finance) and other cases [2024] EWCA Civ 1282

Miss Hopcraft, Mr Wrench, and Mr Johnson were unsophisticated consumers who used car dealers to arrange finance for car purchases. The dealers acted as credit brokers and received undisclosed or partially disclosed commissions from the lenders (FirstRand and Close Brothers) for introducing the finance agreements. In Hopcraft, no disclosure was made about the commission paid by Close Brothers to the dealer. In Wrench, only vague references to a possible commission were made in FirstRand’s standard terms, which were not expected to be read by the consumer. In Johnson, the dealer provided a misleading document suggesting impartial advice would be given across a panel of lenders, when in fact there was a contractual tie obliging the dealer to offer FirstRand’s products first.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. The County Court transferred

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll